- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Remind me in 2 years when this project becomes discontinued…
Is it true that there is no truly independent web browser or are there others?
The project management may have some obvious problems (jOin dIsc0Rd sErVEr; w0rD “thEy” t0o p0liTicAl). But we really need an alternative to browsers funded by Google (Chrome and Firefox).
So I’ll do my best to actually build from sources and see what can I help with. Attacking the author is helping nobody.
And for the folks who are saying “wHy n0t rUst”, you can always show me the (rust) code.
“Ladybird uses a brand new engine based on web standards, without borrowing any code from other browsers.” has the same energy as
Not really. They aren’t inventing new standards. They are implementing an engine that confirms to existing standards.
In this case having more browser engines not under Google’s control is probably a good thing. Although this effort might’ve been better spent working on Servo.
you shouldn’t use this browser the devs are transphobic sexist chuds
Hmm. I just read the github thread that this is about. The devs made a mistake on this; but it seems to me that there is a bit of an over-reaction here. The people in the thread seem to be discussing it calmly and politely; and the issue (i.e. use of pronouns in the build instructions) ends up being resolved. By contrast, the reaction outside of the actual thread… is extreme.
Like I said, this seems like an overreaction to someone making a mistake of ignorance & indifference. It wasn’t an act of malice.
they must be trying to go after the brave marketshare
Appears to be fixed now: https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/24648
All this because they won’t change a “he” into “they” ? Who gives a fuck about such rampant whiteknightism ? Why does a browser even need to know your gender ? In what context even is there a pronoun in the user interface ?
You could find out the context by reading the title of the thread, but then you’d have less to bitch about, so I can understand why you chose ignorance.
Why don’t ya’ll contribute some meaningful code instead of finding ways to deny those who do
Please describe to me how someone who offered up changes to change “he” to “they” for them, and then the contributor getting pissy about “politics” is denying work.
… What
Yeah, I saw this, and all my excitement for the project died. If it becomes successful, I might use it anyway though.
Wasn’t this the transphobic one?
Changing to gender neutral seems like a no brainer to me but how is this transphobia?
i like how they’re like this isnt the place for personal politics while ignoring the fact that gendered readme files are patently stupid in the first place.
Shoutout to the user pointing out that forcing “he” is just as, if not more, political ❤️
Brave?
Don’t believe they’re related
Brave is the one run by transphobes who also love crypto.
I do not understand the urge to start from scratch instead of forking an existing, mature codebase. This is typically a rookie instinct, but they aren’t rookie so there’s perhaps an alternative motive of some sort.
There is currently no implementation of web standards that is under a more permissive license than LGPL or MPL. I think that is a gap worth filling and if I recall that is what Ladybird is doing.
i’d argue its better for software to max foss license like AGPL, not bsd that can be taken out by companies
I guess Chromium isn’t fully BSD. This could be the reason. Although I’d think reimplementing the non-BSD bits in Chromium would be less work than reimplementing all the bits, including the BSD ones.
Chromium and WebKit both still have bits from KHTML in them which is LGPL
Because there are only like 3 browser engines: Chrome’s Blink, Firefox’s Gecko and Apple‘s WebKit. And while they are all open source, KHTML, the last independent browser engine got discontinued last year and hasn’t been actively developed since 2016.
There’s need in the space for an unaffiliated engine. Google’s share is far too high for a healthy market (roughly 75%), WebKit never got big outside of Safari (although there are a few like Gnome Web, there’s no up to date WebKit based browser on Windows) and Gecko has its own problems (like lack of HEVC support).
So, in my book, this is exciting news. Sure it‘ll take a while to mature and it is up against software giants but it‘s something because Mozilla doesn’t seem to have a working strategy to fight against Google‘s monopoly and Apple doesn’t have to.
webkit and blink are based of KHTML
Technically blink is based WebKit but yes. However, they were forked 23 and 11 years ago respectively, so it’s safe to assume they evolved into their own thing. But they probably do still share code, yes.
Mozilla doesn’t seem to have a working strategy
Guess they couldn’t replicate the “own everything that people use to get stuff on the internet and make secret breaking changes to constantly mess up other browsers” strategy.
Also Gecko’s development is led by people thinking that it being usable outside of Firefox\Thunderbird is a bad thing. There was a time when Gnome’s browser was based on Gecko, not WebKit. And in general it’s influenced by bad practices.
SerenityOS is an amazing project, of course. To do so much work for something completely disconnected from the wider FOSS ecosystem, and with such results.
So it’s cool that they’ve decided to split off the browser as its own project.
That’s always struck me as odd, but I’m also very much an outsider looking in. A “gecko electron” does sound intriguing though.
I wonder why Microsoft decided to switch from their own engine to Blink, they could’ve switched to Gecko and keep the web a little bit more free
Servo is going to fill that void
I meant alternative browsers, like vimb or surf, but on Gecko and not WebKit.
Webkit and blink have the same base
Yea, but Webkit was forked from KHTML 23 years ago and Blink was forked from WebKit 11 years ago. In the mean time they all definitely evolved to become their own thing, even though in the beginning they were the same.
WDYM “independent” ?
Isn’t mozilla / gecko more or less independent?
They get most of their money from google for the “default search engine deal” make of that what you want. For me personally it doesn’t sound fully independent.
Seems a little idealistic.
If ladybird actually achieves any sort of userbase they would take the same deal in an instant.
Based on the community being quite succsessful so far despite being made by volunteers, I don’t think they will.
Oh my sweet summer child.
Could they not add HEVC support? Or is there some technical limitation that meant starting from zero was a good idea?
HEVC is almost entirely down the the licensing. This section of the wikipedia page details it pretty well.
The tl;dr is that the LA group wanted to hike the fees significantly, and that combined with a fear of locking in led to the mozilla group not to support HEVC.
And it’s annoying at times. Some of my security cameras are HEVC only at full resolution, which means I cannot view them in Firefox.
They could, probably. My guess is, that it’s either a limitation of resources, the issue of licensing fees or Google‘s significant financial influence on Mozilla forcing them to make a worse browser than they potentially could. Similar to how Firefox does not support HDR (although, to my knowledge, there’s no licensing involved there).
The biggest problem most people have with Mozilla is said influence by Google, making them not truly independent.
Google probably is putting pressure on Mozilla, but if the options are licensed HECV or open royalty-free AV1, the choice is pretty clear for a FOSS project.
Yes but: HEVC is the standard for UHD content for now, until AV1 gets much broader adoption. And judging from how long HEVC took to be as broadly available as h.264, it’ll still take a while for AV1 to be viable for most applications.
Yeah I’m curious as to whether there’s not merit in taking the imperfect codebase and improving it.
I suppose Mozilla is already doing that as best as they can.
Because software monocultures are bad. The vast majority of browsers are Chromium based. Since Google de-facto decides what gets in Chromium, sooner or later the downstream forks are forced to adopt their changes. Manifest V3 is a great example of this. You can only backport for so long, especially when upstream is being adversarial to your changes. We need an unaffiliated engine that corrects the mistakes we made with KHTML/Webkit.
Why are open source software monocultures bad? The vast majority of non-Windows OSes are Linux based. Teams who don’t like certain decisions of the mainline Linux team maintain their forks with the needed changes.
Manifest V3 is a great example of this. You can only backport for so long, especially when upstream is being adversarial to your changes. We need an unaffiliated engine that corrects the mistakes we made with KHTML/Webkit.
And we could get a functional one today by forking Chromium and never accepting a single upstream patch thereafter. I find it really hard to believe that starting a browser engine from scratch would require less labor. This is why I’m looking for an alternative motive. Someone mentioned licensing.
Perhaps some folks just want to do more work to write a new browser engine. After all Linus did just that, instead of forking the BSD kernel.
I agree mostly, but forks don’t need to keep the upstream. They can go their own way.
I hope this pans out, because I’ve long ago lost hope on Firefox being a worthy alternative to Chromium.
Firefox has been perfectly capable for the entire time it has existed. What are you talking about?
Have you used Firefox recently? There are a few chrome only sites but I’ve been daily driving it for a few months and it’s mostly upside
is it open source?
Funny how in the video the guy say that all other browsers are based on Google’s code. But Firefox is also independent right?
Firefox gets tons of funding from Google, and their code is quite frankly humongous. From what I understand, it’s extremely hard to get the gecko web view engine to work. In another browser, unless it’s a fork of Firefox, unlike Chromium where you can just redesign an entire browser around it.
Google is Mozilla’s biggest source of income, and google developers have actively contributed code to the Firefox engine.
So you decide for yourself what level of independence you assign to it.
He says “powered by or funded by Google”. Firefox depends on Google financially, most of the income of Mozilla comes from Google paying for being the default search engine.
They try to diversify their income (Firefox VPN, email alias service, etc.), but anything they try gets a huge backlash from the community, and still small compared to the the money from google.
Is this their way of asking Google for money?
I think google need firefox exist to avoid anti trust, and Mozilla need google to keep the the six figures payroll for the CEO. So yes.
Kudos to them. Opera gave up on this dream being unable to accommodate all the nuances of web standards and accounting for out of conformance behaviours that many websites rely on the daily.
I reckon this browser will need to be at least on par with reasonably recent version of Firefox to see significant adoption.
I still mourn the death of Presto-days Opera.
I do too. What a joke the browser became after moving to Chromium… I remember it didn’t even have bookmarks in the first version.
On the flip side I kind of understand the decision to pull the plug - if you’ve looked at
Browser.jsand think that potentially any site might need a fix to work properly…
Laaaaaaaaadybird.
We’re gonna have to put laaaaaaaadybird down… Mr Hill?
The comment I came here for 🐶
Love the idea! Shopify as the highest tier sponsor? Not so much.
Why? Shopify has been sponsoring stuff like community gaming events for a few years now.
I mean if they’re gonna give money without demanding anything I’m sure no complaints from the devs.
Shopify or an exec there might find some value in avoiding Google owning the web, could maybe bring goodwill for the company, or they could just be looking for a write off.
They’re making a new browser engine from scratch in an open way, absolutely amazing!
I do have several questions:
Why would they use BSD instead of GPL? If you care about open-source so much, why would you make it possible for a company to run away with your fancy new engine?
Why are they creating a new browser, when even firefox has to struggle to keep some semblance of market share? I get that not every project needs to aim to be “the biggest”, and that even a smaller project (in terms of users), can be fun. It’s just that writing a browser engine that can handle the modern web seems like an almost Sisyphean task; which makes me wonder what their motivation(?) is.
Why the FLOSS are they using closed-source proprietary discord as their main communication channel?
- (BSD vs GPL) Andreas stated on twitter that he wanted to give devs total freedom to use his work because when he worked at Apple he felt frustrated he couldn’t incorporate some code/software into his work because of GPL.
- (Why?) The aim is not to create a chrome competitor, but to make a good enough, truly free browser that isn’t either chrome or funded by chrome. A browser made for and by its user’s.
- (Discord) Because of gen-z.
As someone who uses BSD licensed modified code at work and relies on it quite a lot, it’s crucial to me choosing which projects I’m able to use in the first place.
Personally, I prefer a license that allows for commercial use in the way that companies need them to, and if my own work ever can provide a patch back upstream I’d be happy to do so, but most of what I do is just tweaking things that exist to suit my purposes which doesn’t really help anyone but my business rivals which I personally am not interested in doing if I don’t have to.
I prefer to have the freedom to do as I wish with the code, as compared to being bound to do as the author wishes and essentially just not using that code in the first place because I can’t. I’m not in a position to change what I can and can’t do because of the requirements of the business I work for, and I’m grateful to those that choose licenses that allow me to use their work.
They’re creating a new browser because they want to. It started as an OS building project that the lead dev did to help stay sober.
They use discord because it’s popular. Insert Ouroborus argument here, and at the end of the day it’s still the most popular app.
They use discord because it’s popular. Insert Ouroborus argument here, and at the end of the day it’s still the most popular app.
Using this logic why shouldn’t I just download chrome and forget this project exists?
Depending on your use case, maybe you should. If your use case is “using the internet today securely”, then you definitely should.
I’m not trying to create a logical puzzle that teasing the right details out of will solve, I’m not even advocating for or against their decision, discord fuckin sucks shit and I can’t wait for element to continue to mature towards enough feature parity that a switch is seamless so that I can actually convince my friends to switch too, I’m reporting a reality of life on the internet today.
Good luck!
